Everstake Review
Published per-network commission with self-custody of staked funds
of 10
Everstake scores 7.4/10: it publishes a 10% ETH and 7% SOL commission and states it never controls user assets. One company runs every validator, exits follow protocol queues with no liquid token, and its terms exclude slashing liability. Based on desk research of its pages and terms on 1 November 2026.
Ethereum commission
10% of rewards, pooled staking from 0.01 ETH
Solana commission
7% of rewards, native delegation from 1 SOL
Custody
Terms: Everstake never accesses or controls user assets or keys
Slashing liability
Excluded in terms; total liability capped at six months of fees
Exit
ETH: exit queue plus protocol delay; SOL: next epoch, about 2–3 days
Score arithmetic
(10 + 10 + 5 + 6 + 6) / 5 = 7.4
Scores
Each criterion carries equal weight. The overall score is the average of these 5 scores — (10.0 + 10.0 + 5.0 + 6.0 + 6.0) ÷ 5 = 7.4.
Pros
- Fee transparency 10: retail commission published per network, 10% on ETH and 7% on SOL
- Custody & control 10: terms say Everstake never accesses or controls user assets or keys
- Commission is charged on rewards only, never on the staked principal, per the ETH page
- Exit terms are stated for both networks, with no Everstake fee on unstaking
Cons
- Decentralisation 5: a single company operates every validator retail stakers use
- Risk disclosure 6: no insurance, and the terms exclude liability for slashing losses
- Exit & liquidity 6: no liquid staking token or instant exit; ETH exit time varies with the queue
- ETH page conflicts on timing, listing "Unbound 11 days" but saying there is no fixed period
Everstake scores 7.4 out of 10 in our staking platforms ratings, fifth of six after this round of re-scoring, behind Marinade, Rocket Pool, Lido and StakeWise. Two criteria earn full marks: it publishes its retail commission as a figure on each network page, and its terms say it never holds users' assets or keys. The score is held back by structure rather than by missing disclosure. Everstake is one company running its own validators, it offers no liquid token or instant exit, and its terms rule out any compensation for slashing.
The assessment is desk research from Everstake's own staking pages and terms of use, checked on 1 November 2026. We did not stake funds with Everstake, and nothing here measures realized returns.
How Everstake scores in staking platforms
The category uses five criteria, each worth 20% of the score. Everstake's marks are unchanged from the July 2026 check. The current pages support each of them, although some of the evidence behind the marks has shifted.
| Criterion | Finding (1 Nov 2026) | Mark |
|---|---|---|
| Fee transparency | 10% of rewards on pooled ETH, 7% on Solana delegation, charged on rewards only | 10 |
| Custody & control | Terms: Everstake never has access to or controls user assets, keys or wallets | 10 |
| Decentralisation | One company operates every validator a retail staker delegates to | 5 |
| Risk disclosure | Penalties and slashing explained; no insurance; slashing liability excluded in terms | 6 |
| Exit & liquidity | Protocol exit only: Ethereum queue plus delay, Solana next epoch; no liquid token | 6 |
Arithmetic: (10 + 10 + 5 + 6 + 6) / 5 = 37 / 5 = 7.4.
Strongest criteria: fees and custody
Fee transparency (10)
The Ethereum staking page lists a 10% fee for its pooled product from 0.01 ETH, and says the commission is "deducted from rewards only, never from your initial stake amount." The Solana page states a 7% commission on rewards, with a 1 SOL minimum. On Solana, the roughly 0.000005 SOL needed to create a stake account is described as a network cost, not an Everstake charge. Both retail rates are single figures, and all of the commission goes to the one operator, so there is no operator-versus-treasury split for the rubric to look for.
One caveat: the institutional tier (from $500,000) and the custom tier (from 320 ETH) show fees as "Lower" and "Custom," agreed per contract. The 10 applies to the retail rates a reader can actually check. The yield ranges on both pages exclude the fee. Our guide to staking returns after costs explains how to net a commission out of a headline rate.
Custody & control (10)
The terms of use, last updated 25 February 2026, say Everstake does not hold, manage or have access to users' private keys, wallets or digital assets. The Solana page adds that Everstake cannot move, withdraw or freeze delegated SOL, which stays in a stake account the delegator controls. On Ethereum, retail ETH sits in Everstake's pooled staking contract rather than in a user-owned validator. The page names audits of that contract by ChainSecurity (August 2023), Ackee (September 2023 and November 2025) and Trail of Bits (January 2025). The custody statement is unqualified, and the user starts withdrawals, so the mark stays at the top of the scale.
Weakest criteria: concentration, risk cover and exit
Decentralisation (5)
This mark reflects a structural fact, not missing information. A delegator to Everstake relies on one company's validators. No one can join as an independent operator, and stake is not spread across a curated set. Under the rubric, a single-operator service is not disqualified, but it is scored as a concentration risk. Figment, the other single-operator service in the category, gets the same 5.
Risk disclosure (6)
Everstake explains the penalties. The Ethereum page warns of "penalties for downtime and slashing." The Solana page says the chain currently has no slashing, but that missed slots reduce rewards and the rules could change. The cover side is adverse. The pages describe no insurance, and the terms state that Everstake "shall not be held liable for any losses incurred due to slashing penalties," with overall liability capped at six months of validator fees. On incident history, the only statement is a self-reported claim of zero material slashing and 99.98% observed uptime. We could not verify either figure independently, and the pages list no dated incidents. Explanation without cover or an incident log fits a 6.
Exit & liquidity (6)
Exits follow each network's protocol and nothing faster. On Ethereum, a withdrawal waits in the network exit queue, then a fixed protocol delay applies before ETH returns. The page itself is inconsistent here: a table shows "Unbound 11 days," while the FAQ says there is no fixed period and points readers to a live queue tracker. On Solana, deactivated SOL becomes withdrawable at the next epoch, typically in two to three days, with no rewards during that window. Neither page offers a liquid staking token or an instant exit at any price. The exit terms are stated and Everstake adds no unstaking fee, the same standard on which Figment also scores 6.
What the score does not cover
- Realized yield. The APR ranges are network estimates. We did not measure Everstake's validator performance or rewards against the network average.
- Every network. Everstake reports supporting more than 130 networks. This review relies on the Ethereum and Solana pages, where most retail stake sits, and commission rates on other networks may differ.
- Institutional contracts. Negotiated fees and service terms are not public, so we did not score them.
- Corporate attestations. SOC 2 Type II and ISO 27001 cover Everstake's internal controls. They do not protect staked funds, and they do not count toward any criterion.
Everstake vs Figment and Lido
Figment (7.2) is the closest structural peer: also one company running its own validators, with the same 10 for custody, 5 for decentralisation and 6 for exit. Everstake leads on fee transparency (10 to 6), because its retail commissions are fixed and published per network, while Figment leads on risk disclosure (9 to 6), because its institutional contracts reimburse slashing up to a stated cap. Net, Everstake is 0.2 ahead. Lido (8.0) starts from the opposite design. It spreads stake across many operators and issues stETH, a liquid token, which is why it outscores Everstake on decentralisation and exit despite a lower custody mark. A reader who wants a liquid position or wider operator spread will find it in Lido or another protocol in this category, not in Everstake.
Who it suits
The rating best fits a holder who wants to delegate ETH or SOL from their own wallet at a stated commission and can wait for protocol-speed exits. It is a weaker fit for anyone who needs to exit quickly, wants losses from validator faults reimbursed, or wants to avoid depending on a single operator. The rating is not a recommendation to stake, and staking rewards are never guaranteed.
How it compares
Marinade
Solana staking with zero reward fee and stake spread across validators
Rocket Pool
Permissionless Ethereum staking with a fully published fee split
Lido
Liquid ETH staking with a fixed published 10% fee
StakeWise
Choosing your own Ethereum staking operator with published fee rules
Figment
Non-custodial staking with contractual slashing cover and stated caps
Sources
Scored from published primary sources rather than hands-on use. Every figure above comes from one of the pages below, on the date shown. Manufacturers change prices and specifications without notice — if something here no longer matches the source, tell us and we will correct it.
- 1.Everstake — Ethereum staking — checked
- 2.Everstake — Solana staking — checked
- 3.Everstake — terms of use (updated 25 Feb 2026) — checked
- 4.Everstake — product terms (January 2026) — checked
- 5.Everstake — about — checked
Frequently asked questions
Why does Everstake score 7.4 out of 10?
It takes full marks for fee transparency and custody, then 5 for decentralisation and 6 each for risk disclosure and exit. The plain average of those five marks is 37 divided by 5, or 7.4.
What holds Everstake's score back?
How the service is built. One operator runs the validators, exits are only as fast as the Ethereum queue or the Solana epoch, and the terms exclude liability for slashing losses, with no insurance offered.
Which parts of Everstake were actually checked?
Its Ethereum and Solana staking pages and its terms of use, all read on 1 November 2026. We did not stake funds, measure validator uptime or review institutional contracts.
Did any of Everstake's marks change in this update?
No. All five marks are the same as at the July 2026 check, but the evidence is fuller. The terms now explicitly exclude slashing liability, and the Solana page publishes a separate 7% commission.
How does Everstake compare with Figment?
Both are single-operator services that tie on custody, decentralisation and exit. Everstake scores higher on fees, 10 to 6, and Figment higher on risk disclosure, 9 to 6, because it reimburses slashing contractually. Everstake finishes at 7.4 to Figment's 7.2.
Who is Everstake's rating most useful for?
A holder who wants to delegate ETH or SOL from their own wallet at a published commission and does not need a liquid token or a quick exit.
Nothing here is financial advice. Editorial policy · How we score · How we're funded.